Friday, February 28, 2014

We don’t know enough about the impacts of unconventional natural gas development on public health
in order to adequately evaluate its risks, according to researchers from the
University of Colorado and the University of Pittsburgh.

The rapid
increase in unconventional natural gas (UNG) development in the United States
during the past decade has brought wells and related infrastructure closer to
population centers. This review evaluates risks to public health from chemical
and nonchemical stressors associated with UNG, describes likely exposure
pathways and potential health effects, and identifies major uncertainties to
address with future research. The most important occupational stressors include
mortality, exposure to hazardous materials and increased risk of industrial
accidents. For communities near development and production sites the major
stressors are air
pollutants, ground
and surface water contamination, truck traffic and noise pollution,
accidents and malfunctions, and psychosocial stress associated with community
change. Despite broad public concern, no comprehensive population-based studies
of the public health effects of UNG operations exist. Major uncertainties are
the unknown frequency and duration of human exposure, future extent of
development, potential emission control and mitigation strategies, and a
paucity of baseline data to enable substantive before and after comparisons for
affected populations and environmental media. Overall, the current literature
suggests that research needs to address these uncertainties before we can
reasonably quantify the likelihood of occurrence or magnitude of adverse health
effects associated with UNG production in workers and communities.

The data
vacuum surrounding unconventional natgas development – from baselines, to ongoing monitoring, to post-development –
urgently needs to be filled.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Development of natural
gas and wind resources in the six-state Marcellus shale region could damage
nearly 1.3 million acres of land, an
area bigger than the state of Delaware, according to a paper published this monthin
the scientific journal PLOS One.

The
study looked at energy development in parts of New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio and Virginia. It predicts that over 106,000 new gas wells
will be drilled in the Marcellus region – a conservative estimate, in my view. There
are projections of Marcellus drilling that are almost
twice that in Pennsylvania alone. It also projects that almost 11,000 new wind
turbines will be built in the region.

The study found that each
gas well pad and the roads, pipelines, and infrastructure associated with it impacts 50 acres of land, and that each wind turbine impacts 15 acres of land. Almost 85% of the 1.3
million acres damaged by the projected gas and wind development - 1.1 million acres – is forest land. That landscape
industrialization will significantly affect habitats, recreation,
aesthetics, historical
and cultural resources, and – critically - local watersheds.

The study found:

This increase in surface disturbance and fragmentation will
potentially impact the maintenance of biodiversity and the quality of surface
water resources for ~22 million people [including New York City, Washington DC,
Philadelphia & Pittsburgh]. The increase in energy production
forecasted by our analysis may be compatible with biodiversity if properly
sited, but will still pose a challenge for surface water resources, both
because of the strong link between surface water quality and surface
disturbance and because of the high value for water production for watersheds
in the study area.

The Marcellus Shale represents one of the fastest growing
shale deposits in the world. With both wind and shale gas projected to expand
dramatically in coming decades predicting patterns and impacts in the Marcellus
could serve as a model for development that is likely to be replicated
globally. Already, Argentina, Australia, China, and Colombia have identified
large shale gas deposits that are in the planning stages of development.The impacts from individual gas
wells/wind turbines or even those of a single wind farm or gas field are likely
to be manageable and compatible with broader landscape level conservation
goals. Our analysis reveals it will be the cumulative
impacts that pose the greatest challenge for landscape level conservation
goals. Unfortunately assessment of environmental impacts are (sic) made well by
well or gas field by gas field with little or no attempt to assess cumulative
impacts. Scenarios and scenario analysis [what I’ve referred to as landscape-level
planning] have become popular approaches in pursuit of
sustainable development. However, they are little used, at least in any
formal way, in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Fostering the use of
scenario modeling, like the approach outlined here, can allow regulators to
examine the potential consequences of development objectives quickly and
inexpensively. We conclude by encouraging EIA practitioners to learn about the
promise of scenario-based analysis and implement scenario-based methods so that
EIA can become more effective in fostering sustainable development.

Will the
states in the Marcellus region be smart enough to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
the immense landscape impacts from both natural gas and wind energy
development?Will these states model
sustainable development to the world?

Ironically,
producing more hydrocarbons in the short term - and begging the question of how to get off oil - is what’s needed now to mitigate the accumulated effects of past hydrocarbon combustion. As I’ve written, utilizing
captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery and
enhanced gas recovery
will offset some of the initial high costs of the technology, and - just as
important - propel capture technologies down their cost curves and enable wider application to power
plants and industrial sources of CO2 emissions.

Plus, the production
of more oil (and eventually gas) would sock away a lot of carbon in the
process. How much?

Currently in the
US, 117 EOR projects produce 282,000 barrels of oil per day. Over 80% of the CO2
used to get that oil comes from naturally-occurring
sources, and less than 20% from anthropogenic sources like factories or
power plants.

EOR production is projected to grow to 650,000 barrels per day by
2020, and demand for CO2 is projected to more than double. Where we get the
CO2 for that production – and to achieve the full potential of EOR – will make
all the difference.

Current US coal-fired power capacity is about
300 GW. ARI says that if the US went all-in on utilizing CO2 for on-shore EOR
in the lower 48 states, nearly a billion metric tons of CO2 could be stored by
2030. That’s roughly equivalent to capturing 90% of the CO2 emitted from five 1GW coal-fired power plants for 30 years.

In the longer
term, using next-generation
EOR technology, and expanding EOR to Alaska and off-shore oil plays, ARI
finds that demand for CO2 – and storage – could equate to the emissions of 231
1GW coal-fired power plants - 77% of all US coal-fired emissions.

This is an
oversimplification, obviously, but it illustrates the opportunity. The potential demand for CO2 for EOR is immense. Solutions like the Pennsylvania
model of CCUS networks will be essential to link power plants and factories
to CO2 users in the most economical and efficient way. And it's clear that we should leave the natural CO2 in the ground and move as rapidly
as possible to replace them with solely anthropogenic
sources of CO2 – factories and power plants.The climate, environmental, and public health gains would be even bigger if those CCS-equipped power plants switched from coal to natural gas.

ARI’s analysis
shows that this vision of putting the "U" in CCUS could also put a "Made in the USA" stamp on it as well. Leading the world in the development of CCUS technology and creating the jobs that will come with it in a global market is economically viable. What's lacking is political
will.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Where
are the best places in the US to install solar energy? Sunny California? Arid Arizona?
How about wind power? The wind-swept
Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas?

Not
necessarily.

In
a study published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences on July 16, 2013, researchers at Carnegie
Mellon University concluded that the biggest bang for the energy buck should be measured by not only
energy generation but also where the most people would benefit from the most reductions in air pollution, public health impacts,
and environmental degradation. That, they found, depends on what the renewable energy is
displacing. Think coal. Think Pennsylvania
and West
Virginia.

When
wind or solar energy displace (sic) conventional generation, the reduction in
emissions varies dramatically across the United States. Although the Southwest
has the greatest solar resource, a solar panel in New Jersey displaces
significantly more sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter than
a panel in Arizona, resulting in 15 times more health and environmental
benefits. A wind turbine in West Virginia displaces twice as much carbon
dioxide as the same turbine in California. Depending on location, we estimate
that the combined health, environmental, and climate
benefits from wind or solar range from $10/MWh to $100/MWh, and the sites with
the highest energy output do not yield the greatest social benefits in many
cases. We estimate that the social benefits from existing wind farms are
roughly 60% higher than the cost of the Production Tax Credit, an important
federal subsidy for wind energy. However, that same investment could achieve
greater health, environmental, and climate
benefits if it were differentiated by region.

put
a price tag on the social benefits of emission reductions and found, for
example, that a wind turbine in West Virginia would avoid $230 in health and
environmental damages per kilowatt-hour per year, displacing twice as much
carbon dioxide and seven times as much health damage as the same turbine in
California. Solar and wind energy sources emit less carbon dioxide and air
pollution than burning fossil fuels for electricity.

The
researchers suggested that Congress take regional variations into account when
structuring tax benefits for clean energy. They argued that the incentives
should be available at least until costs are competitive with conventional
energy generation.

A Green thing

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a Green thing that stands in the way. Some see Nature all Ridicule and Deformity...and some scarce see Nature at all. But to the eyes of the Man of Imagination, Nature is Imagination itself.

William Blake, English poet (1757-1827)

About Me

John is Director of the Center for Environment, Energy, and Economy and Lecturer in Sustainability at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology. He is a former Senior Fellow and current Advisory Board member at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and a consultant. He served as Secretary of the PA Department of Environmental Protection from Jan. 2015-May 2016, and as Secretary of the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from April 2009-Jan. 2011. He is the only person in PA's history to serve as Secretary of both of the state's natural resource agencies. He also served as a two term Mayor of Hazleton, PA, and as an Alternate Federal Commissioner on the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
John is a graduate of Bloomsburg University with a degree in economics, and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Lehigh University.